I'm playing a tiefling fey warlock that has made his pact with a colossal serpent. All actions, people, thoughts, and events of the universe are captured on the serpent's scales (yes, I stole this idea from the peyote trip scene in the desert from The Doors movie).
When the opportunity presents itself for a Streetwise check (in which I'm trained), I want to meditate for a while to attempt to recall an image from the serpent's scales. I'm not trying to get any sort of information I wouldn't otherwise be able to acquire from a normal Streetwise check. I'm not trying to give myself any advantage whatsoever, and I want the same penalties for failure. To put it as plainly as possible, I want to roll a streetwise check to get streetwise information; I just want to roleplay out the in-game method by which the information is acquired in a different way.
No gains, no advantages, no disadvantages, nothing. I just want to meditate to get some info instead of mingling with unnamed NPCs around town.
If there are side effects for poking your nose where it doesn't belong, the meditation result can point me in the direction of someone that would cause the same side effects to happen.
Once again, let me be perfectly clear that I don't want any advantages or to circumvent any obstacles in doing this. I just want to roleplay out the implementation of the skill in a different way.
The DM is wholeheartedly against this. He has told me he will not allow this because streetwise requires social interaction, and he refuses to allow me to meditate instead.
I have said that I'm not looking for any advantages or to get out of any side effects, but he won't budge.
Who's in the right here? I want to roll a Streetwise check (in which I'm trained) to get Streetwise information. I just want to roleplay out the method of the skill check in a different manner (but still have the exact same result and side effects).
I want to be able to get streetwise information, but I refuse to go rub elbows and shake hands with the town rabble to get it. What's the problem?
I would definitely allow you to do this in my game.
I could want my character to hover and instead of walking he flys only inches above the ground with no advantage whatsoever mechanically. Dm says "Umm no you can walk just like everyone else" My concept may not give any advantage but why try and reinvent the wheel.
I'm sure your dm is a little skeptical that this may in the future be the ground work for some cheesy bizarre advantage. It smells rather suspicously of pc trying to incrementally trying to get an advantage.
I really like the concept of your idea. Aside from that, I don't have anything to offer.
That's why I'm so upset about it
In my opinion it's a great way for me to integrate my backstory into the campaign without disturbing the main storyline at all. It's more fun for me and more entertaining to everyone else at the table. It has no effect on the outcome of the Streetwise check, but the DM can't get over the fact that I'm not using it in a social setting.
As long as the end result and side effects don't change, who cares?
From the PHB:
Streetwise (Charisma)
When in a settlement—a village, a town, or a city—make a Streetwise check to find out what’s going on, who the movers and shakers are, where to get what you need (and how to get there), and where not to go.
It doesn't say how it works.
Your concept is just too far from the norm. I don't really think its that unusual of a call your dm made. You want something uniquely mystical and that is just not how that particular skill works.
I'm just roleplaying it differently. There is no advantage gained. I'm not getting mystical knowledge. I'm just trying to get normal streetwise information by making a streetwise check.
We discussed it this evening, and he asked what would happen if I was locked in a jail cell. Normally, you couldn't perform a streetwise check in such a situation, and I said my method would simply fail. If I couldn't perform a generic streetwise check, I wouldn't be able to use my version.
Once again, just to make it perfectly clear, I'm not trying to gain any advantage here. I'm not trying to lay the groundwork to trap the DM into anything. I just want to roleplay it out differently.
Are you playing 4E?
From the PHB:
It doesn't say how it works.
EXACTLY! I have pointed this out numerous times, but he says he doesn't care. He says he's comparing it to the Gather Information skill from 3.5, but if he would actually read the Gather Information description in PHB 3.5, he'd see that it doesn't specifically state that you must speak with anyone in there either.
I can see where the dm just doesn't want deal with it. Others taking up the cause of having their own unique thing and having to watch and make sure that you or anyone else is slipping something by him and getting a cheesy advantage.
As long as the end result and side effects don't change, who cares?
Well, apparently your DM.
You know, the guy that'll actually be giving you whatever information is to be learned?
The guy who's job it really is to decide what works & what doesn't?
Anyways, as others have said, your reflavoring is a pretty fair departure from how this skill is generally thought of.
Another thing that may be working against you is how much you protest that you're not seeking some sort of advantage.
If you protested this much to me in RL, I know as your DM I'd be suspicious.... And with good reason. Because over the years I've seen such behavior before & it almost always heralds some sort of trouble further on. Not always, but often enough for me to be wary of it.
I'd rule as your DM did. What you are describing is not simple skill use, it's more like a clerical power or spell, or shamanic journey type stuff.
If you were playing a Shaman Per 2e optional rules, I'd definitely allow and encourage this.
I am Urshaks DM. I am pretty happy that he actually brought it up on here to see what you guys think. I really value the Forums input on things like this. I posted this same reply in the "Whats a DM to do" section as well so I can get my 2 cents in no matter where you read.
I do agree that his idea is infact flavorful and interesting. The biggest issue I have, as stated above is the fact he wishes to use a skill that is socially driven in a non social way.
Yes its true he would be making the standard streetwise checks and the streetwise knowledge would be given to him if he had succeded. My biggest issues are.
1) Its a charisma based skill, hence its a social skill. If it were intelligence based like knowledge local used to be things would be different
2) It says specifically in the PHB that "When in a settlement—a village, a town, or a city— make a Streetwise check to find out what’s going on, who the movers and shakers are, where to get what you need (and how to get there), and where not to go." To me thats sounds like a social skill that requires you to talk directly to people to get your information. Who you should speak with can't just appear to you through meditation.
3) Streetwise is similar to Gather Information from 3.5e. Gather information is also a Cha based skill that says "Uses this skill for making contacts in an area, finding out local gossip, and collecting general information." It also talks about "buying drinks and making friends", making it stand out even more social.
Now I understand that my current session is not 3.5e, however referencing similar skills from previous editions, or even other RPG's is a good way to handle current skills.
Heck if anyone has ever played the Shadowrun RPG, it even speaks of street knowledge as " This kind of street savy can only be learned from living, observing, and surviving at the lowest level of existence". The streets are really rough in the shadowrun world. "These skills represent a characters ability to use and maintain a level of contact with the street." The street meaning the people, not a vision granted to you through meditation.
Heck, even the Palladium Fantasy RPG says "Streetwise: The skill instills an understanding of the darker side of city life and the scoundrels who roam those streets." You need to roam the streets to understand them.
4) I presented Urshak with another option. The rituals found in the PHB. They are open to players in this session as well.
Rituals like...
Consult Mystic Sages:You enter a trance in which you commune with the spirits of long-dead sages and otherworldly loremasters, seeking answers to your esoteric questions.
Consult Oracle: A ghostly, shrouded figure with glowing eyes appears before you, offering brief, cryptic answers to your questions.
Hand of Fate: A ghostly apparition appears to give you basic guidance about a course of action.
Loremaster’s Bargain: Through a significant offering, you are granted a brief magical audience with a powerful entity who possesses the information you seek.
Voice of Fate: A booming voice heard only by the ritual participants provides guidance for your future actions.
I feel that all off the above listed rituals will accomplish what Urshak is attempting to do. He openly disagrees and says his use of the Steetwise skill is correct. I feel that in order for him to retrieve streetwise information without direct social interaction with people/places on the "street" its more of a magical based ability. Skills aren't supposed to be magical, at least in my opinion. Thats why the above rituals exist. Not only that the rituals listed above are all Religion based skills, which is based off intellegence.
It feels as if he would be gathering Streetwise information, with a streetwise check, in a none streetwise way. I am not tryin to push out Urshaks creativity, I just want the skills to be used in the manner they were designed.
I am ready for it...flame away.
It's getting to seem to me that total and absolute fanatical belief in the skill descriptions is going to keep me from having as much fun as I could be having, and I don't think that's right. I'm skilled in Streetwise, I have a high CHA as a feylock, and I want to make a Streetwise check to get Streetwise information. The manner in which I go about acquiring this information has exactly the same end result and side effects as it would have if I had gone about getting the Streetwise information in the normal way.
...so again, why is this such a big deal? Who cares?
...and another thing that may inspire some thought on this...
My character had a candle in his cell when he killed his cellmate to acquire the fey pact with the serpent. He rubbed this candle along with a blank piece of parchment in the blood of his dead cellmate, and now whenever he lights the candle, he can read the invisible runes that show up on the parchment (it's a long poem I'm writing that will be the prophecy of the serpent which will allow my character to unlock his powers as he levels).
Is this going to be taken away from me too because "Oh that sounds like a ritual..." or "That's far too powerful of an ability for a low level character..."? This is something that I created for my own character for character development reasons. Does it have to possess a known magical ability? Why can't I just have these things and have them work like I want them to? It has zero effect on the game at all; it's strictly there so I can have fun with my character.
The Streetwise usage is the same thing. Once again, please give me an example of how it would have a negative effect or somehow end up different than the regular usage, and I'll correct your example to show how it wouldn't. Same difference as the candle and the parchment.
It also hinders NPCs making their own gather information checks to discover that you've been snooping around town. If you're trying to discover the location of the thieves guild headquarters you should not be able to do so with indemnity.
So in short, you do get two mechanical advantages [sort of] and it would take time away from the group and put more of the spotlight on you. So, no.
No player's character is truly his alone.
No DM's campaign world is truly his alone.
The entire D&D experience is a collaboration between players and the DM to create a game experience and story -- and generally "fun" -- that keeps them all wanting to come back to the table week after week. A significant part of that is of course compromise.
Usually the compromises are not really stated or even noticed. Over time the DM works out ways to better pace the game session, by calling the next person in order before his turn, or the players accommodate a sometimes-longwinded DM when he voices an NPC without complaining. Very minor things that I think aren't at all controversial or a surprise.
The main issues of compromise that cause trouble (ignoring real life matters) are game rules related, either interpretations or houserule and supplement creation/implementation, or else setting related, where there are different opinions on how the world "works." This problem is sort of both, though mostly setting related I'd say.
It is true that describing Streetwise as a kind of meditation with an extraplanar gigantic creature, if it functions mechanically to normal Streetwise, won't affect the rules of the game. What it does affect though is the shared campaign, which all players and the DM have a stake in.
Now this may seem like a tangent: Not everyone plays D&D the same way. Some groups vastly prefer hack and slash (and loot), and others might go several sessions without raising a blade or leaving a castle. Sort of a universal truth with roleplaying games. This is the style, "roll vs. role" etc.
Similarly, some games are serious, or "gritty," with dark tones of despair, suffering peoples and a rising darkness. Others are lighthearted, with constant out of character jokes about the real world or in-game events, and PCs named "Rob the Rager" being acceptable. This is the tone of the game.
Back to the main issue: Reflavoring an ability, one that every player can do to a degree, changes the tone of the setting. To start with extreme examples, a campaign world where all arcane magic is "actually" divinely granted by angels, or a world where Doppelgangers are in the majority in most countries, "feels" very different from the standard setting which is implied by the rule books and common fantasy. Mechanics haven't changed, but the tone did.
Similarly an all Dragonborn party will end up behaving and feeling different than an all "Fire-breathing cave lizard" party, even if they all have identical statistics.
If the campaign has been going along with a party of rough-and-tumble humans and half orcs with not much sense of humor, and then a new player joins the party as a Kender, the game changes for everybody. A rough-and-tumble Halfling would probably fit fine though.
Some games are set in Eberron, some are in the Forgotten Realms, some are hybrid/homebrews... that's all primarily flavor which heavily affects a campaign.
A player has a right to want to customize his character, to make it his own. Whether in the form of custom powers, or magic items, or supplemental rules materials, or just flavor and backstory descriptions. He should expect that not every new option will fly though, and respect that the DM's decisions are made primarily with the best interest of the game at heart for the most people.
On the other hand, a DM should give consideration to a player's unorthodox ideas. He should try to find a way something can work, given the world, or even potentially altering the world. This sort of thing is often done when introducing new races or classes from supplements, but it can apply to flavor and tone issues as well.
What I'm seeing here is the conflict between a player's desire to customize his character, and the DM's desire to maintain world consistency (very tangentially also rules consistency).
There have already been game world "tone" compromises in the form of allowing the Warlock to establish his pact with a strange, essentially "made up" giant serpent which did not exist in the game world beforehand, and to have a mysterious poem only he can read, which will eventually unlock further powers (and just maybe end the world some day). Did that have to be allowed? Certainly not, the books are fairly clear about fey spirits and such, and the world joined when one becomes a player likely has conventions and traditions of its own.
In the interest of preserving the tone of the campaign world, where the serpent creature is not tightly interwoven with the fabric of peoples' hearts and minds in the city... it does not sound so bizarre to me to disallow that alteration of the Streetwise flavor. Is the DM willing to let a Ritual function as if contacting the serpentine master? Yes. To the DM and his understanding of the campaign world, dealing with the extraplanar originator of the Warlock's mystical powers seems more the purview of "magical effect," somewhat out of the scope of the mundane.
Perhaps there are other reasons as well, such as wanting to roleplay the social interactions with the players at the table, taking a back and forth of how they go about looking for info, which bars they check, who they bribe, etc. If the Warlock, who is trained, is able to simply snap up relevant information by meditating in his bedroom, something is potentially lost or changed from the campaign; primarily because of flavor and tone.
Both parties should probably take some time off from the argument, and think a bit on how the other person probably views a situation.
Personally, I would push for a further compromise on this Streetwise issue. Perhaps the serpent whispers almost inaudibly as if in a dream around you, and you are better able to hone in on information you find relevant and extract it from those nearby -- and that is reflected by your skill training's +5 or potential Skill Focus or racial bonuses, and your above average Charisma. You do not gain information by virtue of your tie to an entity alone -- but you are good at ferreting information out of people "the old fashioned way" aided in part by your connection. With very slight changes in the explanation why the skills work as normal, and to a degree that player participation or interaction with "the world" is not altered.
I do not believe the Warlock's personality, backstory, or motivations would be at all changed by Streetwise acting more traditionally than the player had hoped.
Otherwise, it's pretty interesting.
> "When in a settlement—a village, a town, or a city— make a Streetwise check
> to find out what’s going on, who the movers and shakers are, where to get
> what you need (and how to get there), and where not to go." To me thats
> sounds like a social skill that requires you to talk directly to people to get your
> information. Who you should speak with can't just appear to you through
> meditation.
This could just as easily be accomplished by reading the local broadsheets and looking at the town records and/or street signs, without needing to do much talking at all.
As long as the skill is still playing out in the same fashion mechanically, it doesn't really matter what the fluff explanation for it is. This includes a mystical explanation for a mundane skill; 4E doesn't thematically assume that only full-tilt spellcasters can do magical things anymore.
If there is no method for the DM to punish the roleplaying, they tend not to allow it.
Then this style of DM rewards players who are playing "Jo with a beard and scottish accent on occasion, aka thoradin the dwarven fighter".
In this case, the DM was probably hoping to have some sort of you roll a 1, and do something stupid in public reaction. If you meditate in a locked room that "hilareous" situation couldn't occur. I could see the DM saying you have to do this in a public square, to attune to the pulse of the city) Possibly the DM has something planned like enemies recognizing you in town, and the DM is not on the spot creative enough to have them "feel your presence and know your location" or something similar, giving the same negative and positive result.
Honestly though, it seems like some DMs just like to take any depth added to a character and look for a way to use it to screw the player. This was probably the same sort of DM who used paladin alignment as a leash to control the player.
(just got out of a game where my nautolan jedi couldn't have sweet yellow full body tribal tattoos because they look too much like sith tattoos and the jedi wouldn't have that)
(And a DM who decided my infrenal pact means high level demons show up and kill the party while we sleep)
(not returning to either game)
One manner of compromise jumped out at me though. Use the meditation reflavoring be used only to point the way to the one with the information. So the scales never directly tell you where the thief is hiding, but you see an image of your character speaking to a certain bartender and off you go to try and talk the information out of him. Good luck finding a work around that works for you both.
I do agree that his idea is infact flavorful and interesting. The biggest issue I have, as stated above is the fact he wishes to use a skill that is socially driven in a non social way.
Your opinion only, apparently in the Ops mind, it is a non social skill. Also see previous post about wanted board ect for gathering info.
1) Its a charisma based skill, hence its a social skill. If it were intelligence based like knowledge local used to be things would be different
Charisma is force of personailty. Just as some casters use it to fuel their spells, he uses it to force his way into the natural energy of the city.
2) It says specifically in the PHB that "When in a settlement—a village, a town, or a city— make a Streetwise check to find out what’s going on, who the movers and shakers are, where to get what you need (and how to get there), and where not to go." To me thats sounds like a social skill that requires you to talk directly to people to get your information. Who you should speak with can't just appear to you through meditation.
Wanted board post.
3) Streetwise is similar to Gather Information from 3.5e. Gather information is also a Cha based skill that says "Uses this skill for making contacts in an area, finding out local gossip, and collecting general information." It also talks about "buying drinks and making friends", making it stand out even more social.
Irrelivent. the 4e wizard is similar to the 3.5 wizard, thus it should gain a +0 BAB at level 1.
Heck if anyone has ever played the Shadowrun RPG, it even speaks of street knowledge as " This kind of street savy can only be learned from living, observing, and surviving at the lowest level of existence". The streets are really rough in the shadowrun world. "These skills represent a characters ability to use and maintain a level of contact with the street." The street meaning the people, not a vision granted to you through meditation.
Frequently DM it. Can only be learned through "living, observing, and surviving at the lowest level of existence" none of which involve talking to NPCs. They never once mention people.
Heck, even the Palladium Fantasy RPG says "Streetwise: The skill instills an understanding of the darker side of city life and the scoundrels who roam those streets." You need to roam the streets to understand them. living, observing, and surviving at the lowest level of existence
Again, never once say, and even you dont say that you need to talk to people to do this. SImply that you need to be in the street, or have seen it, or be near it, or be able to touch its ebb and flow.
4) I presented Urshak with another option. The rituals found in the PHB. They are open to players in this session as well.
Good idea presenting other options, but im guessing the player does not have ritual caster, and if you notice those rituals dont make use of the streetwise skill Different routes to the same end.
I feel that all off the above listed rituals will accomplish what Urshak is attempting to do. He openly disagrees and says his use of the Steetwise skill is correct. I feel that in order for him to retrieve streetwise information without direct social interaction with people/places on the "street" its more of a magical based ability. Skills aren't supposed to be magical, at least in my opinion. Thats why the above rituals exist. Not only that the rituals listed above are all Religion based skills, which is based off intellegence.
In your opinion. Unfortunatly this is a cooperative game, and you have to measure two things as the DM.
1- Does it make my players happy
2- will it radically change the shape of the game
If the answer is yes to the first but no to the second, then the change is fine. (i need a better way to word that)
It feels as if he would be gathering Streetwise information, with a streetwise check, in a none streetwise way. I am not tryin to push out Urshaks creativity, I just want the skills to be used in the manner they were designed.
Did you design them? who says thats how it was designed?
Instead of meditating, you do the same things as other players using the Streetwise skill, but the reasons you draw your conclusions are less on the actual interactions and more on your flashes of a half remembered fever dream?
You could even build this into your charcters insight in a similar fashion.
Were I the player, I wouldn't try too hard to get this, but I've played under some pretty stiff DMs.
I love the idea, and I commend you on creativity, but that doesn't mean everyone will appreciate it equally.
Your opinion only, apparently in the Ops mind, it is a non social skill. Also see previous post about wanted board ect for gathering info.
But in this case you would actually have to go look at it,find the wanted poster is part of the Steetwise sceen not simply knowing where it is
Charisma is force of personailty. Just as some casters use it to fuel their spells, he uses it to force his way into the natural energy of the city.
It doesnt seem like that much of a stretch to say Streetwise is a socail skill. I used the refernce of charisma to indicate it is effected by the characters personality. I know that sorcerers have more potent spells in3.5 due to charisma but when you say "His way into the Natural energy of the city" it sounds like he is accessing a ley line of magic. Which to me sounds like a magic driven thing, not a skill based thing.
Can only be learned through "living, observing, and surviving at the lowest level of existence" none of which involve talking to NPCs. They never once mention people.
In order to learn ecominocs you need to go to the class. In order to learn to survive on the streets you need to physicaly live there.
Good idea presenting other options, but im guessing the player does not have ritual caster, and if you notice those rituals dont make use of the streetwise skill Different routes to the same end.
Thats why I feel its not a streetwise check he wants to do its more of a religion based check.
In your opinion. Unfortunatly this is a cooperative game, and you have to measure two things as the DM.
1- Does it make my players happy
2- will it radically change the shape of the game
If the answer is yes to the first but no to the second, then the change is fine. (i need a better way to word that)
Did you design them? who says thats how it was designed?
I agree with you here Krusk, but in the end Urshak didn't design the system either, nor did you. Heck I bet most everybody that has stated their opinion on here hasn't. In the end thats all this is, opinions.
Instead of speaking with people in town or searching for clues to get pointed in the right direction, and having the sign of which way to go handed to you thourgh your medation feels more like "Roll-playing" intead of "Role-playing".
I just want him to handle the skill like the rest of the party members. Everyone needs to go jump through the same hoops as the rest.
I was just so caught off guard when Urshak tired to use the skill in his way out of the blue without consulting me. I had to make a quick desicion at the session, and its no fun to feel cornered as DM, especially when you know your desicion is getting on the players nerves. I am not trying to be the bad guy, no one here is. But as a DM when I put my foot down on whatever desicion I make I don't want to be viewed as the jerk who locks down his players. I to have been with those types of DM's and I agree its no fun. But I don't want to be a weak DM that gives players what they want how they want it, and has little control over the game. I respect Urshak for his creative mind, and I am willing to work with other options to handle this. In fact he has a few other ideas on the table that I am willing to work with him on. But I cant give him everything, and my role as the DM should be respected for that.
I have heard alot of good input supporting his side in these forums, I have also gotten similar support. So neither of us are alone with our opinions.
Thank you everyone for you comments thus far. Urshak and I really appreciate it.
I think your DM [GM] is right. I wouldn't allow this either and it would not be because I'm worried about any mechanical advantages. I would refuse because it makes the PC less open to the world and less involved with the NPCs of the game, it also puts him in a situation in which other characters can't participate. You go into a room do a mystical ritual with the substances you select and then it's all done.
It also hinders NPCs making their own gather information checks to discover that you've been snooping around town. If you're trying to discover the location of the thieves guild headquarters you should not be able to do so with indemnity.
So in short, you do get two mechanical advantages [sort of] and it would take time away from the group and put more of the spotlight on you. So, no.
I'd say there's a slight mechanical benefit to your method, Urshak. It doesn't require socializing. Some DMs might use your Streetwise check as an opportunity for someone to see and recognize you, for good or ill.
Otherwise, it's pretty interesting.
Both very good points, but you both misunderstand what I'm trying to do.
"I would refuse because it makes the PC less open to the world and less involved with the NPCs of the game, it also puts him in a situation in which other characters can't participate. You go into a room do a mystical ritual with the substances you select and then it's all done."
If interaction with an NPC is intended, then the mediation result can point me in the direction of that NPC (like his house, his wife, his kids, or where he works). If it's important that the entire party comes with to speak with this NPC, then there's nothing in my meditation version that would prevent them from doing so. Once again, I'm not trying to change any results or side effects; I'm just trying to roleplay it differently.
"It also hinders NPCs making their own gather information checks to discover that you've been snooping around town. If you're trying to discover the location of the thieves guild headquarters you should not be able to do so with indemnity."
My meditation result would be to speak with a particular person. If I roll a bad check, then my vision is to go speak with some guy that actually IS IN THE GUILD. If I roll a good check, then my vision is of the entire street the place is located. I go to visit that street looking at the buildings. Same result as without meditation.
"It doesn't require socializing. Some DMs might use your Streetwise check as an opportunity for someone to see and recognize you, for good or ill."
If someone is supposed to see me, then my meditation result can involve me going into their area.
In general here, I think we need to agree on just what sort of info streetwise provides. If someone was just murdered, you don't roll a 20 on a streetwise check and say "THE KILLER WAS DEATHRAIMUS SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!" Instead, you roll a 20 on a streetwise check and learn that the victim was in debt, had a drug problem, and was messing around with Mr. Slaughterhouse's wife. If this information is gathered from some no-name NPC on a road somewhere with no story significance, then why does it matter if I get this info through meditation? If this no-name NPC is actually important, then my meditation result can point me at him.
There doesn't necessarily need to be a removal of 'socialness' if the 'socialness' is important.
Another thing I want to make sure is understood: my pact lord serpent isn't giving me an answer; I'm just seeing images that stick out on his scales. With a bad roll, I can misinterpret what I see and end up in trouble the same as a normal streetwise check would.
* "That's not how it works" isn't really valid. Things can work however you want, as long as the mechanics play out (which Urshak clearly wants them to). Especially since that the flavor of 'how it works' is mutable. That's why it's flavor and can be changed.
* "That's not how it works in other systems" isn't valid either. You aren't playing those systems. Nothing privileges those systems either (maybe they're doing it wrong!)
* "That's not balanced/fair to the rest of the players/game" is a valid response. But I really don't think he's gaining any advantage out of this.
* "That messes up how I want to the game to proceed" is also valid. If you really use Streetwise checks to get the PCs from point A to point B, and this would interfere with that, they yeah, don't allow it.
Otherwise, what is the problem (other than "that's now how it works")? I think this seems like a lot of fun, and a great opportunity to add neat little mysteries and stuff to the game. Rather than talking to Farmer Bill who tells you something, you can present it as an image that requires interpretation. I'm having problems thinking of a reason that this would mess up the game.
If the PCs need to get ambushed on the way, that can still happen (as Urshak said, maybe he just gets a vision of who to talk to). If they need to be spotted asking around then again they can actually be moving around. Or maybe Urshak has a tendency to "sleep-walk" while he's consulting the scales, so people may seem him nosing about. Or maybe they ask questions on why he is meditating out in the middle of the street (where he needs to be to focus the scales or something). As a DM I'd welcome it with open arms--I wish more players put that much effort into personalizing and reflavoring their character's actions.
That said, if you guys can't come to an agreement by your next game, I'd drop it Urshak. It sounds like you have lots of great ideas for personalizing and roleplaying your character--I don't think the loss of this one idea is going to break anything. Let it go and get on playing
But I still think your DM should allow it :p
EDIT: Also, remember that Streetwise also includes the old Knowledge(Local) skill from 3.5. Which sounds like exactly what he is doing.
But in this case you would actually have to go look at it,find the wanted poster is part of the Steetwise sceen not simply knowing where it is
So he recieves a vision of a board with the info he wants on it, then walks over and reads it. Rather than asking Some Dude, the NPC, who tells him to look at the board.
It doesnt seem like that much of a stretch to say Streetwise is a socail skill. I used the refernce of charisma to indicate it is effected by the characters personality. I know that sorcerers have more potent spells in3.5 due to charisma but when you say "His way into the Natural energy of the city" it sounds like he is accessing a ley line of magic. Which to me sounds like a magic driven thing, not a skill based thing.
It is a social skill, but if it doesn't change the mechanics, provides no benefits, or any penalties, why bother fighting on this issue? I just see it as something that if you let it go, the only change is a happy player, where as if you keep your ground on this issue you have an unhappy one. Thats the only thing that changes on how you handle the issue.
In order to learn ecominocs you need to go to the class. In order to learn to survive on the streets you need to physicaly live there.
So tell him he has to meditate in the middle of the market, or whatever the most active area of the street happens to be. He is still in the open, easily spotted and heck he is doing something strange. Maybe people stare at it or talk about it. Easier for people to notice him. Maybe people ask him what he is doing, maybe gaurds attempt to stop him. Plenty of options for roleplay, and ways to get him in the street to do a streetwise check.
I agree with you here Krusk, but in the end Urshak didn't design the system either, nor did you. Heck I bet most everybody that has stated their opinion on here hasn't. In the end thats all this is, opinions.
Right, and in this issue it boils down to "do i want my player to have fun or not? Well interpretation A says yes, and B says no, which do i do?"
Instead of speaking with people in town or searching for clues to get pointed in the right direction, and having the sign of which way to go handed to you thourgh your medation feels more like "Roll-playing" intead of "Role-playing".
Thats why you don't have him recieve a sign. Give him through his meditation the image of a mans dressed as a baker. The baker has a long black mustache. He can then go on this info as he wants, does he ask the baker his questions, is the baker the robber, is the baker the man who was robbed, is he the lookout for the bandits in their hideout behind his bakery? Any of those depending on the result of the check. He still has to roleplay it out with the baker.
Heck if you want it simple, he gets he image of the baker. He then knows who he should talk to. Or if he rolls poorly talks to the wrong guy.
You are totally right in not just giving the answers at the end of the streetwise check, but that should be for anyone doing streetwise not just the guy meditating.
The guy who rolls a 35 doesnt immediatly find out the solution to the problem, he finds out he needs to talk to the baker with a black moustache to get his answers. Just like the guy who meditates gets a picture of this same baker.
I just want him to handle the skill like the rest of the party members. Everyone needs to go jump through the same hoops as the rest.
What if the challenge was getting onto a rooftop. DOes everyone need to climb the wall? Its an atheletics check, everyone agree. But perhapse one guy climbs the wall, one guy jumps it, and another wall runs up it. Who cares how they got there, thats for them to decide.
I was just so caught off guard when Urshak tired to use the skill in his way out of the blue without consulting me. I had to make a quick desicion at the session, and its no fun to feel cornered as DM, especially when you know your desicion is getting on the players nerves. I am not trying to be the bad guy, no one here is. But as a DM when I put my foot down on whatever desicion I make I don't want to be viewed as the jerk who locks down his players. I to have been with those types of DM's and I agree its no fun. But I don't want to be a weak DM that gives players what they want how they want it, and has little control over the game. I respect Urshak for his creative mind, and I am willing to work with other options to handle this. In fact he has a few other ideas on the table that I am willing to work with him on. But I cant give him everything, and my role as the DM should be respected for that.
He should have consulted you before the game ifthis was the intended use of streetwise, and ran through exactly how both of you wanted it to work. He wants to meditate, you explain you have to do it the same as everyone. He decides to meditate in the street.
You shouldn't give him everything, but this is one of those small things you really ought to just let go.
Interaction with NPCs is a fun part of the game for me as a DM. It's when I get to roleplay someone other than Villains and Shopkeepers it's what really defines the kind of world we are in. Do people generally help? Are people conforming to a real world cultural stereotype? Describing architecture can only go so far.
At the same time it's where I usually put the foreshadowing. I don't like pulling out a new imporant "well known" NPCs from nowhere. If such a character is coming up I try to drop the guy's name maybe 2 sessions ahead of the party actually meeting the fellow.
As I said in the other thread.....
I'll offer up my response.
I'm going to side with the DM for all the previously stated reasons, as well as a few others.
1) The streetwise check requires you to be in a city to work. According to your legend, the serpent records ALL of the world's events on its scales.
Thus, following this logic, there is no reason other than you policing yourself for why you cannot also use the snake-mediation trick for History, Arcana, or Religion, and to a lesser degree, Dungeoneering and perhaps even Nature checks? If the Serpent records all actions, people, and thoughts, as you say, might it not also not be finagled into an insight check?
Maybe you think you'd do a good job of policing yourself such that you only use this power under the same conditions as a streetwise check, even though your narration of the power would suggest that you could use it for so much more (your character just seems to irrationally choose not to), but letting a player police himself like this generally leads to resentment around the table, even if you never stray from your own self-imposed boundaries.
2) The PHB also says that the result of a Streetwise check is:
"Success: You collect a useful bit of information, gather rumors, find out about available jobs, or locate the best deal."
Are you suggesting that the serpents scales not only record every historical event, but also, every "Buy 1 sunrod get 1 free" sale in the local marketplace? Generally, streetwise deals with sorting through a lot of the mundane details of city life to find the salient bits of information. For the purposes of story, it kind of inflates the grandeur of the mythical serpent. It's like praying to God for a train schedule. Maybe it's fun for you, but you should understand why this would take the wind out of the DM's story. And this directly counteracts your claim that you would police yourself by merely saying "I wouldn't even think of bothering my lord with those petty questions". It would appear that the only times you consult the snake is to ruffle through petty information!
3) Lastly, streetwise checks always impose some sort of risk. PHB says:
"Failure: You can try again, but you might draw attention to yourself if you keep chasing after the same information."
When I'm chasing after the big bad evil guy in the city, it's quite obvious what risks I run if I'm asking for him by name in every establishment, and making myself too noticeable if I fail a Streetwise check. Your method either carries no such risk, or the implementation of that risk is, to be frank, a little hackneyed.
You say that the skill would be balanced because the information you get from the snake could point you in the direction of trouble. See...when I use Streetwise, there are two ways that I can fail it.
A) It's possible that I could get bad information that leads me to trouble, and I can make the choice whether or not to follow that information.
When I make a bad streetwise check, there's a possibility that I'll get a bad lead, I'll discuss it with my party, and we'll decide "Uhhh...that actually doesn't sound like a very bright idea. Let's not meet that guy in a dark alley tonight." With your method, you can do that too.
B) But there is another possibility. When I make a bad streetwise check, my party and I can be sitting in the tavern minding our own business, when the gang leader's thugs march into the place and say something to the effect of "Hey, you there! We hear you've been asking quite a few nosy questions around town... *pounds fist*" . OR, when I make a bad streetwise check, the DM can say "While exploring the city, you get lost and find yourself in a sketchy neighborhood. Roll initiative." The point is, I put myself at risk merely by being actively searching the town, not just by making the choice to follow a lead. Your method allows you to see an NPC doing something somewhere, and suggests that you go look for that NPC, but you cannot be suddenly thrust into an unexpected interaction, which occurs quite often in the traditional Streetwise check. Again, saying that you would balance it by having your character automatically follow a bad lead in order to get yourself into trouble is another example of you attempting to police your own conflation of the skill, as well as forcing your DM to improve a situation that doesn't need to be complicated.
Your Serpent divination method has no risk of B, and any rationalization for imposing one just doesn't make all that much sense story-wise. I would recommend the methods that your DM suggested,or at the very least attempt to associate the Serpent story with History/Arcana/Religion checks rather than Streetwise. It also seem a little too convenient that you would choose Streetwise out of all the skills (as a warlock that probably has a substantial CHA score) to try to finagle this ability into. I think you'd have to be on pretty good terms with every other player at your table to not attract at least a little bit of jealousy or suspicion.
> your legend, the serpent records ALL of the world's events on its scales.
>
> Thus, following this logic, there is no reason other than you policing yourself
> for why you cannot also use the snake-mediation trick for History, Arcana, or
> Religion, and to a lesser degree, Dungeoneering and perhaps even Nature
> checks? If the Serpent records all actions, people, and thoughts, as you say,
> might it not also not be finagled into an insight check?
Why not? It's exactly the theme I used with my star-pact warlock's skills - it's even why he has the ones trained that he does. He was never trained in History, but the stars saw all that has been, and whisper...
Again, as long as the mechanical result is the same (roll a History check as normally), does it really matter whether the character spent years with his nose buried in books or receives otherworldly guidance in coming up with his answer (or not)?
2) If the snake doesn't want to answer the petty question, it doesn't - as the result of a failed check. If it does answer, then maybe the question wasn't so petty after all. The serpent knows more than the PC does, and maybe this petty question has a greater significance in the scheme of things than it's being given credit for.
Same principle with my star pact warlock. If the stars whisper to him on a subject, they have their reasons, incomprehensible (and perhaps better not thought too much about) though those might be.
But don't you think its the interaction with the little people like Joe Schmo that make the Role-play world deeper and more meaningful?
It can, but only to a very smal extent. Id say to a lesser extent than the this mystic seeing of the city makes the world a deeper and more meaningful place.
In reality no one cares about talking to jo, especially timeand time again. Once is cool, twice is bearable, and thrice is annoying.
Reading the Scales
GP: Special
Charisma+1/2 lvl
You may attempt to read information from the scales of the serpent. A clearer picture of the scales cost more.
Search for common knowledge. 50GP, DC 15, add 5 if you are trained in streetwise and can see the people who's thought's you are looking for.
Stuff like that.
Hi everyone.
I'm playing a tiefling fey warlock that has made his pact with a colossal serpent. All actions, people, thoughts, and events of the universe are captured on the serpent's scales (yes, I stole this idea from the peyote trip scene in the desert from The Doors movie).
No gains, no advantages, no disadvantages, nothing. I just want to meditate to get some info instead of mingling with unnamed NPCs around town.
If there are side effects for poking your nose where it doesn't belong, the meditation result can point me in the direction of someone that would cause the same side effects to happen.I want to be able to get streetwise information, but I refuse to go rub elbows and shake hands with the town rabble to get it. What's the problem?
I agree on your DM with this one... if you don't want to rub elbows with townsfolk, that's fine... But what you are asking for is simply Divination. Just retrain out of Streetwise and take Religion and learn the right rituals. The scales would perfectly fit in with Divination rituals such as Hand of Fate.
Basically here's my question... if you are so worked up about having this flavoring on your character, why don't you build him to support it?
First, stop with the silly nonsense of arguing that the book doesn't describe "how" you get the information from streetwise. That is self evident from the name. Streetwise can be looked up in a common dictionary, and doesn't need explaining, just as it doesn't explain that you must shoot an arrow pointy end first. Arguing otherwise will just annoy the DM at best.
Now there is an advantage, even though you are not aware of it, and that is this, when you use the Streetwise skill like this, by meditating, then you are gaining that information without interacting with the varrious people in the town.
This is an advantage because asking questions and interacting with people will cause a suitable reaction by them. For instance, if you went around town asking about a certain person, then there is a good chance that the person in question will hear that you are asking around about him "Hey Bob, there was a group of people asking about you today, they had armor and swords and a wizard and a cleric with them..." Bob might just well decide it's a good time to skip town.
What if you were asking around about someone who was say an assasin and didn't take to kindly to people asking questions about him? What if you were trying to find information to expose that a certain so-and-so was really a spy for a different kingdom? What if you get mugged or have another encounter while walking around town asking questions? What if there are some who would be inclined to give you false information, either because they lie to you or because they have been lied to themselves (such as they believe Bob is a good, upstanding person and don't know that he is really a Vampire, or that he murdered someone just last night) Your system would only show the truth. Asking questions and interaction, ie streetwise, risks reprisals and reactions from others.
Your system doesn't have any reprisals, reaction or misinformation because it bypasses it completely by contacting the scales. It is thus more effective, because unlike Streetwise it can't be lied to, bluffed, or misinformed, and the target that you seek information about can't tell you are doing it.
That may not be your intent, but the DM must consider every aspect of a power such as this.
What you need to do is find a common ground to encoorperate your concept within acceptability of the DM.
Here is a suggestion.
Roll streetwise as normal, interacting with people, asking questions, etc. And Then meditate on the scales on how all this information fits together. Unlike the intent of your idea, this could be used to glean a slight bonus, albeit a reasonable one, as you would essentially be thinking over all the details that you gathered and looking at the bigger picture. Basically insight on what you already know.
I honestly ask, is half the people responding to the OP even reading his replies? Most of the disagreement with his idea seems to stem from this misconception that he wants to ignore any social interaction in the city. The way I see it, he wants something like the following:
DM: Alright, you have a general idea of where General Surok might be hiding in Winterfall, but without some kind of lead, it'll be almost impossible to find him.
OP: Alright friends, give me a moment to reflect on my memories of the Serpent and perhaps he shall guide us true. (I roll a Streetwise check after meditating for a few minutes in the town square. I got a 21. Anything?)
DM: You see in your mind's eye a flash of red, and a sign saying "The Red Dawn". You feel drawn to seek out these clues.
OP: I have seen something on the Serpent's scales. The color red, and a name, "The Red Dawn". Perhaps we shall find what we seek if we follow these clues?
So, right, what does this mean? Now the PC's head to the Red Dawn, which is a tavern near the square the OP meditated in. Since he's already rolled the Streetwise check they find it no problem, maybe asking a few passerby's about it. This means that people know they were looking for it, the OP gets to use Streetwise the way he wants, the game is better from the creative RP, and nothing more is gained out of the skill use than would be if they'd just asked about the General themselves.
Is that really so game-shattering?
Now there is an advantage, even though you are not aware of it, and that is this, when you use the Streetwise skill like this, by meditating, then you are gaining that information without interacting with the varrious people in the town.
This is an advantage because asking questions and interacting with people will cause a suitable reaction by them. For instance, if you went around town asking about a certain person, then there is a good chance that the person in question will hear that you are asking around about him "Hey Bob, there was a group of people asking about you today, they had armor and swords and a wizard and a cleric with them..." Bob might just well decide it's a good time to skip town.
This is a crystal clear, precise example of how I'm being misinterpreted (which is probably my own fault for not being clear enough).
The mediatation result would lead me to go talk to some guy. It could also result in a vision of the town square at which I would start asking around for information. This guy would then go tell Bob: "Hey Bob, there was a group of people asking about you today, they had armor and swords and a wizard and a cleric with them..."
And to clarify, I'm not getting information from the Serpent. I'm just seeing what I see on the scales. The Serpent doesn't control what's on the scales. There is no divine component, so the image depicted isn't necessarily the truth (which is exactly the sort of information a normal streetwise check would yield).
If Bob went to church yesterday and helped an old woman up the stairs, I could instead get a vision of that with a low streetwise check rather than a vision of Bob sucking blood.
"Your system doesn't have any reprisals, reaction or misinformation because it bypasses it completely by contacting the scales. It is thus more effective, because unlike Streetwise it can't be lied to, bluffed, or misinformed, and the target that you seek information about can't tell you are doing it."
If I can get incorrect information from a normal streetwise check, then there's no reason I couldn't get an incorrect vision from a meditation streetwise check. Either I'd see someone's incorrect version of what they believe to be the truth, or I could just plain misinterpret what I'm seeing.
"Here is a suggestion.
Roll streetwise as normal, interacting with people, asking questions, etc. And Then meditate on the scales on how all this information fits together. Unlike the intent of your idea, this could be used to glean a slight bonus, albeit a reasonable one, as you would essentially be thinking over all the details that you gathered and looking at the bigger picture. Basically insight on what you already know."
I very much appreciate your suggestion, and I think it's a good one. However, I'm not looking for any sort of bonus or any sort of homebrew ability/skill. I'm just looking to roleplay streetwise differently.
Hi everyone.
I'm playing a tiefling fey warlock that has made his pact with a colossal serpent. All actions, people, thoughts, and events of the universe are captured on the serpent's scales (yes, I stole this idea from the peyote trip scene in the desert from The Doors movie).
When the opportunity presents itself for a Streetwise check (in which I'm trained), I want to meditate for a while to attempt to recall an image from the serpent's scales.
Some people refuse to believe this because "it's creative!!!" but this flavoring as stated just don't fit with Streetwise. As stated previously, the DM has no problems with allowing him to use the meditation on things like rituals...
What is the problem with using the meditation/scales when making a History check, to represent how the scales will normally only allow you to see what has already happened? And then you could use Divination rituals that will allow for limited insight into the future?
I really don't understand what all this fuss is about. All the OP wants to do is come up with a creative way to use Streetwise that fits his character concept and enjoy RPing it. He gains nothing by it, as he's even admitted he's willing to talk to NPC's if the Serpent points him in that direction.
I honestly ask, is half the people responding to the OP even reading his replies? Most of the disagreement with his idea seems to stem from this misconception that he wants to ignore any social interaction in the city. The way I see it, he wants something like the following:
DM: Alright, you have a general idea of where General Surok might be hiding in Winterfall, but without some kind of lead, it'll be almost impossible to find him.
OP: Alright friends, give me a moment to reflect on my memories of the Serpent and perhaps he shall guide us true. (I roll a Streetwise check after meditating for a few minutes in the town square. I got a 21. Anything?)
DM: You see in your mind's eye a flash of red, and a sign saying "The Red Dawn". You feel drawn to seek out these clues.
OP: I have seen something on the Serpent's scales. The color red, and a name, "The Red Dawn". Perhaps we shall find what we seek if we follow these clues?
So, right, what does this mean? Now the PC's head to the Red Dawn, which is a tavern near the square the OP meditated in. Since he's already rolled the Streetwise check they find it no problem, maybe asking a few passerby's about it. This means that people know they were looking for it, the OP gets to use Streetwise the way he wants, the game is better from the creative RP, and nothing more is gained out of the skill use than would be if they'd just asked about the General themselves.
Is that really so game-shattering?
...or the meditation gives me a vision of a person to ask about General Surok. Low result = one of his lieutenants who then goes to warn him. High result = an old veteran that was run out of the military by Surok.
I think the whole concept is good but it opens up a can of worms. What you are doing sounds very much like using some of the more powerful and high level 3rd edition divination spells. What can happen from your method would be to use mediating for whenever you need answers to any questions. There is also the clarity of the information you are getting off the scales. You are essentially scrying places or people. That is a major bonus in that you know where to find people/places/things. Let me make an example: You mediate to learn about some bandit that is causing trouble. Your scale mediations give you a location or an image of the bandit and his surroundings. Pay attention to that last bit-You can see the area around the subject about which you are inquiring.
It sounds like to me that your dm is intepreting it the same way I am. I would perhaps make some changes here. Maybe you could mediate and glean perhaps a name of somewhere to go to ask about things. Maybe you get an idea of where you should ask around after someone.
I would suggest this comprise which should work for both of you: You can mediate on the scales, but you would be using perception or insight not streetwise. It would work that way better.
To use streetwise for this, though, I would have the effects of mediation be that he could hear the thoughts of the people in the city. It would be a mishmash of thoughts similiar to what he would get by talking with people; not all of it would be useful. The streetwise check could help by clueing him into the thoughts that have useful information. The benefit of this would be that he if he rolled poorly he would get stuff that is just garbage or useless. This would provide the floor he wants but keep in spirit of the skill.
Thats my thoughts on this matter.
The mediatation result would lead me to go talk to some guy.
No.
This is exactly where your interpretation of the skill grants you the advantage.
When I roll a traditional streetwise check, it is assumed that I'm already talking to the guy.
Me: I roll a streetwise check to ask if anyone has seen X
DM: Do you go alone or with the group?
Me: I'll go by myself so I don't attract as much attention to myself. *roll*
DM:You failed the roll. As you are schmoozing around the town, you get a little lost, go down a dark alley, and you run into a street gang. The leader of the gang tells you he doesn't take kindly to foreigners sticking their heads where it doesn't belong. He looks pretty ******.
Me:Oh ****! And I'm all alone to boot. I'll roll diplomacy and see if I can bribe myself out of this mess.
Game continues......
See what happened there? I faced actual risk when I rolled the check. Now let's see what happens when you roll.
Urshak:I'll roll a streetwise check to see if there's any information about X around the town.
DM: Do you go alone or with your party?
Urshak: I'm not going anywhere, remember? I'm just staying in the Inn and meditating.
Buddy: Wait a second, your character can do that? I had to blow a feat to get divination rituals.
Urshak: Dude, it's legit, the DM said so.
Buddy: Right...So if the serpent has everything that ever happened or was ever thought, can it identify this magic sword for me?
Urshak: Nope. I'm not trained in Arcana, so I can't ask the snake about that.
Buddy: Oook...can it give us any hints on the religion of the Death Cultists we're trying to track down?
Urshak: Only if they're in the city.
Buddy: -_-
DM: Oh. Right. Ok, roll your check.
Urshak:*Roll* ****. I got a 9.
DM:Ok, so you see in your mind a picture of a dark alley in what looks like a bad neighborhood. Do you go check it out?
Urshak: Well that sounds like a spectacularly bad idea, but since I'm cheesing my streetwise skill, I'm going to follow this lead just to keep things fair.
DM: Right. Ok, do you go alone or with your party?
Urshak: Well Urshak is smart enough not to go into dark alleys in bad neighborhoods by himself. Come on guys, let's go together.
Buddy: Uh right...since you rolled a nine, I'm gonna buy a healing potion first.
DM: I think that would be meta-gaming. Your character wouldn't know Urhsak rolled a 9.
Buddy: Yeah, but my character would still think that walking down this alley unprepared is a spectacularly bad idea. Why can't I be prepared first?
DM: Because Urshak is cheesing his Streetwise skill. I'm not letting you guys prepare before following a bad lead from the peyote-Snake. Cuz then it wouldn't be fair.
Buddy: So then shouldn't Urshak be going by himself anyways? Since we're not allowed to prepare and all...
*10 minutes of arguing later*
DM: Ok, so you're near the dark alley you saw in your vision.
Urshak: Awesome, who's there?
DM: You see some grungy looking dudes smoking in the alley. Looks like a street gang.
Urshak: Uh oh. Get your dice ready, guys.
DM: The gang leader steps up to you, scowling, and says that he doesn't appreciate it when foreigners start asking too many questions about matters that aren't their business.
Urshak: So...roll initiative right?
DM: Actually, no. He says you're cool with him because you never stepped out of your room and asked anyone any questions.
Buddy: Oh. Ok. Kthanxbai then!
Urshak: Wait, guys! We have to stay and ask this guy probing questions.
Party members in unison: NO WE DON'T!
Urshak: But guuuuuuys! We have to keep following this bad lead or else it wouldn't be faaaaaair !
Buddy: Man, screw this game...
And I know what you're going to say. You're going to say something to the effect of "Well I wouldn't have taken the party along, that would be an unfair use of the skill. I would've gone by myself into a dark alley." And I would say "But...that wouldn't make sense unless your character's a moron". And you'd say "Yeah, but I would do it anyways to keep things fair." And this is my point. In order to keep the skill fair, the onus is on you to keep making strings of bad decisions long after the failed Streetwise check has been rolled. You're only punished for a bad roll if you have the integrity to follow through on chasing a bad lead. The rest of us don't get to choose. When we fail Streetwise, we get thrown into the action whether we like it or not, and that's part of the fun.
To be completely blunt, that sort of explanation for saying the OP's idea gives him an advantage is garbage. If the DM wants to put the party in danger I'm sure he can find a way other than a commonly used skill. Streetwise was never designed with screwing over your character in mind. Sure the DM could give you false information and eventually lead you into a trap, but he shouldn't separate you from the rest of the party and put you in a hostile situation just because you rolled a Streetwise check.
The party is supposed to face danger together. It's half the fun of the game. With the OP's method of using Streetwise they could still end up guided to some dark alley where they get ambushed, so the possibility of danger is still just as prevalent as with the more conventional use of Streetwise.
A lot of people are replying as though the OP said he wanted to avoid all the negative side effects of Streetwise and gain only the good. He's said already at least twice that that isn't what he wants. If people disagree because of flavor, or the DM just isn't comfortable with that RP, then it's fine. But saying the OP's idea is bad because it nets him advantages isn't just wrong, it's completely ignoring what he's already said.
The DM is the referee and the DM is offering a reasonable alternative in this case regardless of any of the points in the argument, how strongly they are believed or how long they are held.
It also appears the DM has been very patient entertaining this argument, so show the same kindness by accepting the DM's alternative. Consider yourself lucky to have such a DM who even listens at all and at the very least tries to come up with a workable solution that has both interests in mind.
The 4ed Forgotten Realms Players Guide has a Ritual that somewhat emulates what the OP is proposing. For a component cost of 20gp and 30 minutes of spent time, you can use your Arcana check in place of your Streetwise check.
Also, I'll chime in that the OP's flavour just_doesn't_make_sense. If the Serpent was a spiritual amalgamation of all sentient life, then Streetwise would make sense. If the Serpent was a metaphysical vessel that hunted down salient conversations and thoughts, it would make sense. As it stands, using Streetwise to communicate with one metaphysical being makes as much sense as using Streetwise to swim in a river.
> you need answers to any questions.
I still don't buy that assertion, nor that it gives him any additional information, because this is still nothing more than a Streetwise check producing the exact same information that it would if you themed it as someone chatting up the locals. Ditto if the same fluff is used for any other skill.
> What can happen from your method would be to use mediating for whenever
> you need answers to any questions.
I still don't buy that assertion, nor that it gives him any additional information, because this is still nothing more than a Streetwise check producing the exact same information that it would if you themed it as someone chatting up the locals. Ditto if the same fluff is used for any other skill.
So as a DM, you would be fine with me meditating and consulting the scales... to perform a Thievery check to steal from someone? If I failed by 4 or more, I wasn't noticed and could try again with a new meditation. If I fail by 5 of more, they would notice what I'm doing and hunt me down... no advantage!!! (other than the fact that, you know... I'm not in physical proximity to the target) Oh, and I don't even think I need to mention that the fluff doesn't even match the skill... but some people don't seem to care about that.
What?! You say I can't do that?! Why not?! This game's no fun anymore!
It appears to me that your DM is simply not interested in making the effort to understand the unique and creative way you are attempting to express your use of the skill Streetwise.
There are many things listed in this thread that might make a DM paranoid, the poster explaining that other than through your own policing of yourself you might suddenly decide that all of your knowledge skills work through the Dragon's scales, or how about your immunity to counter-streetwise effects? There are plenty of reasons to say no, I present reasons to say yes.
I am a very flexible DM, and I don't see any problem with this. A creative and witty DM is going to find a way to warp the vision in your mind's eye, to throw someone in your way, to trip you up as you head towards the person, place, or thing in your vision.
Should you fail, your vision may not be of the thing you seek, but of a person who seeks it also, walking right up to your enemy and informing him that you are both looking for the same thing is going to have in-game, RP, possibly combat consequences. What if you are in every town conducting your visions? Then part of your Streetwise check is going to be going from vendor to vendor in town acquiring the incense, silk, spices, tobacco, what have you, in order to enter your momentary trance. This leaves a trail that can be tracked by villainous npcs, perhaps the villain knows of your serpentine heritage and has been buying out those in the land who can provide incense? Plus your Streetwise is of a mystical nature, perhaps a scrying wizard could read your mind while you view the serpent? Maybe he will share your visions? Perhaps he follows you to steal your ancient knowledge? A new challenger appears! What if on the way to the spot you find in your vision you literally bump right into someone who is looking for you? The path your vision laid out was a months old scale-vision of the town before a new shop was built?
There are plenty of creative solutions for a DM to your issue. If he has already ruled that Streetwise is to be used by it's dictionary/extremely dry/relatively uninteresting fashion then that is his decision to make.
Were you in one of my games, I could see your character transforming into some kind of snake-charming mystic, spending hours a day smoking exotic pipes and laying with serpents while visions of far off places slither through your memory and names of people you've never known are spoken by your smoke-circled lips. I would be happy to allow all of your Knowledge-based skills to be used in this way, I find it to be an extremely interesting and thematic approach to something that might lead to some very interesting or inspired gameplay.
Someone aligned with a serpent god? I would definitely need a game chapter focused on Lizardmen, jungle and ancient bloated demigods of yore for the party to explore while your character fleshes out what it means to be who he is knee deep in the very monsters he reveres.
This is my first post on these forums, I hope it helps!
This is a crystal clear, precise example of how I'm being misinterpreted (which is probably my own fault for not being clear enough).
The mediatation result would lead me to go talk to some guy. It could also result in a vision of the town square at which I would start asking around for information. This guy would then go tell Bob: "Hey Bob, there was a group of people asking about you today, they had armor and swords and a wizard and a cleric with them..."
Not exactly. While it would tell you to go speak with a certain NPC, it would NOT tell you to go and speak with the wrong NPC. Specifically it would tell you exactly which NPCs to talk to whom it would be a good idea to talk and not those to whom it would be a mistake.
so while it sends you to Honest-Joe-Cleric to talk about Bob, and whom answers truthfully. It would not send you to Devious-Ken, who finding out that you are asking about Bob, gives you misinformation and sends you to an ambush.
And although this is clearly not your intention, it does impose a level of difficulty for the DM to work around in such situations where using your method would negate many factors that he has included in his adventure.
I very much appreciate your suggestion, and I think it's a good one. However, I'm not looking for any sort of bonus or any sort of homebrew ability/skill. I'm just looking to roleplay streetwise differently.
That I can appreciate, but I should clarify. The bonus I refer to would be no different then that which I would grant any PC at any time for spending the extra time and effort to sit and meditate carefully on the events that transpired, put your thoughts in order, look on the information as it fits together, and you might gain some insight.
"Hmmm, I asked everyone in the Bar about Bob, who ussually goes there, but knowone knew where he was. But come to think of it, alot of them glanced at that stranger in the corner when I asked about Bob, maybe I should go back and talk to him" For example.
That's strange. Where in the PHB does it say that rolling skill checks should screw over the PC's? Isn't that something that DM's decide on arbitrarily? I mean, if every skill had the risk of ending you up in an ambush, I don't think many people would bother rolling at all.
To be completely blunt, that sort of explanation for saying the OP's idea gives him an advantage is garbage. If the DM wants to put the party in danger I'm sure he can find a way other than a commonly used skill. Streetwise was never designed with screwing over your character in mind. Sure the DM could give you false information and eventually lead you into a trap, but he shouldn't separate you from the rest of the party and put you in a hostile situation just because you rolled a Streetwise check.
The party is supposed to face danger together. It's half the fun of the game. With the OP's method of using Streetwise they could still end up guided to some dark alley where they get ambushed, so the possibility of danger is still just as prevalent as with the more conventional use of Streetwise.
A lot of people are replying as though the OP said he wanted to avoid all the negative side effects of Streetwise and gain only the good. He's said already at least twice that that isn't what he wants. If people disagree because of flavor, or the DM just isn't comfortable with that RP, then it's fine. But saying the OP's idea is bad because it nets him advantages isn't just wrong, it's completely ignoring what he's already said.
Different skills have different risks associated with them.
When you roll a bad history, dungeoneering, nature, or religion skill, you're right, you don't get immediately screwed over. You have time to take in the information you've gleaned from those skills and decide whether or not you act upon them or not. However, this is the case for knowledge skills. The PHB lists these four skills as "Knowledge skills" and I will note that it does not include Streetwise as one of them. The rest of the skills presume an action, such as actively searching a town. Active skills expose you to a direct risk.
If you fail an acrobatics check, you don't get to decide whether you attempt the stunt. You stumble, and DM narrates what consequences follow. When you make an athletics roll, you don't roll it first and decide whether you feel strong enough to attempt the jump. You don't roll a stealth roll before you try to sneak past a guard, or roll intimidate/bluff/diplomacy before trying to convince an NPC to do something.
Each of these skills expose you to a direct risk that, if a roll is failed, results in a negative consequence for the player. You can call it "screwing over your players" but the fact of the matter is that the game is designed such that failing skill checks generally results in an actual penalty of some sort. It is in the PHB entry for Streetwise that a failed check exposes a player to a risk that, after the roll, the PC cannot directly control.
There are four Knowledge skills that fit the needs of the player perfectly, and I do not understand the refusal to simply invest in one of these, or one of the infinitely more fitting rituals that accomplish this purpose.
Now, of course, the DM has the right to do whatever the heck he wants. I, as a DM, have altered the scope of several skills myself to fit the vision of my game. I call those House Rules. However, I believe it is in bad taste for a player to be twisting a DM's arm into house-ruling something just for him.
I have decided not to allow Urshak to use his meditation idea for his steetwise skill. I think a lot of good points have been made both supporting and opposing Urshaks steetwise skill use, but in the end I still believe that the points I have made in my original post are still valid and it seems like majority of people agree that streetwise is not a very good application for this idea. There have been plenty of hits to me as a DM for being close minded and not open to Urshaks creative idea. I will simply take that in stride.
However I really want to let Urshak apply his personal flavor in a way we can both agree on. Thus, like many have suggested Knowledge skills, such as History, Religion, and Arcana would work pretty well with his ideas role-play flavor. In turn Urshak said he would switch his steetwise skill for History instead. I do not see any problems with this. Since History is technically knowledge you already know I would almost view his mediating as his way of remembering facts about the past. Everyone has different ways of remembering things, his is simply recalling where it was written on the scales. I think this is a great idea that allows Urshak the flavor for his character in a well balanced way.
Also, Alter Boy pointed me toward a ritual in the Forgoten Realm Players Guide.
Seek Rumor
You sit in meditation and let rumor drift into your mind,
blown in on the wind of the community consciousness.
Your Arcana check for this ritual counts as a Streetwise
check for gathering information. Treat the Streetwise DC
as 5 higher. You learn only information you could pick up
by a normal use of the Streetwise skill.
This sounds almost exactly like what Urshak is trying to accomplish. It’s nice to see that its so easily laid out. I initial had the world specific books closed for this session but viewing this ritual really makes me think I should open at least the Forgotten Realms PHB book. Urshak is free to go after this ritual if he would like and feel free to add his personal Snake Lord Mediation flavor to it.
Seek Rumor
You sit in meditation and let rumor drift into your mind,
blown in on the wind of the community consciousness.
Your Arcana check for this ritual counts as a Streetwise
check for gathering information. Treat the Streetwise DC
as 5 higher. You learn only information you could pick up
by a normal use of the Streetwise skill.
Win.
Now let's see what happens when you roll.
Urshak:I'll roll a streetwise check to see if there's any information about X around the town.
DM: Do you go alone or with your party?
Urshak: I'm not going anywhere, remember? I'm just staying in the Inn and meditating.
Buddy: Wait a second, your character can do that? I had to blow a feat to get divination rituals.
Urshak: Dude, it's legit, the DM said so. Instead, I'd say "I'm not getting divine information. I'm just rolling a streetwise check."
Buddy: Right...So if the serpent has everything that ever happened or was ever thought, can it identify this magic sword for me?
Urshak: Nope. I'm not trained in Arcana, so I can't ask the snake about that. ...and what exactly would be wrong with this anyway?
Buddy: Oook...can it give us any hints on the religion of the Death Cultists we're trying to track down?
Urshak: Only if they're in the city. Instead: "I wouldn't trust myself to interpret information of that importance." (as I wouldn't go around town using streetwise asking everyone like an idiot because I'd draw too much attention to the group)
Buddy: -_-
DM: Oh. Right. Ok, roll your check.
Urshak:*Roll* ****. I got a 9.
DM:Ok, so you see in your mind a picture of a dark alley in what looks like a bad neighborhood. Do you go check it out? Instead: "You see an image of a general store. Do you go check it out?"
Urshak: Well that sounds like a spectacularly bad idea, but since I'm cheesing my streetwise skill, I'm going to follow this lead just to keep things fair. Instead: "Of course. I'll go to the store."
[b]Urshak: Hello Shopkeep. blah blah blah smalltalk. So what do you know about X?
Shopkeeper: Oh, X is in this neighborhood .
Urshak: leaves the shop
Shopkeeper: runs to the bar across the street to talk to a henchman of X. "Hey, there's this tiefling looking for your boss. I sent him to the neighborhood on the far side of town. Hurry up and tell your boss, and you'll be able to ambush him in the dark alley that's on the way. Don't forget to let X know I'm giving you this information too!"
X Henchman: K.[\B]
DM: Right. Ok, do you go alone or with your party?
Urshak: Well Urshak is smart enough not to go into dark alleys in bad neighborhoods by himself. Come on guys, let's go together. Instead: "I'm already alone, so I don't think I'd go back to get any companions. I'll just go check out the neighborhood to see what I can see. I'm just going to go look around a normal looking area, so I don't expect any trouble."
Buddy: Uh right...since you rolled a nine, I'm gonna buy a healing potion first. Buddy isn't around my character anymore.
...bunch of now irrelevant stuff deleted...
DM: Ok, so you're near the dark alley you saw in your vision. Instead: "On the way to the neighborhood the shopkeep told you about, you walk down an alley..."
Urshak: Awesome, who's there?
DM: You see some grungy looking dudes smoking in the alley. Looks like a street gang.
Urshak: Uh oh. Get your dice ready, guys.
DM: The gang leader steps up to you, scowling, and says that he doesn't appreciate it when foreigners start asking too many questions about matters that aren't their business.
Urshak: So...roll initiative right?
DM: Actually, no. He says you're cool with him because you never stepped out of your room and asked anyone any questions. Instead: "Yep."
And I know what you're going to say. You're going to say something to the effect of "Well I wouldn't have taken the party along, that would be an unfair use of the skill. I would've gone by myself into a dark alley." And I would say "But...that wouldn't make sense unless your character's a moron". And you'd say "Yeah, but I would do it anyways to keep things fair." And this is my point. In order to keep the skill fair, the onus is on you to keep making strings of bad decisions long after the failed Streetwise check has been rolled. You're only punished for a bad roll if you have the integrity to follow through on chasing a bad lead. The rest of us don't get to choose. When we fail Streetwise, we get thrown into the action whether we like it or not, and that's part of the fun.
Would generic streetwise usage have alerted me to the dark alley? No.
Why would the meditation streetwise usage alert me to the dark alley? That goes directly against what I'm trying to do because it would be granting me additional information that would otherwise not have been gained by the generic streetwise check.
"Yeah, but I would do it anyways to keep things fair." And this is my point. In order to keep the skill fair, the onus is on you to keep making strings of bad decisions long after the failed Streetwise check has been rolled. You're only punished for a bad roll if you have the integrity to follow through on chasing a bad lead."
How is this any different than the generic usage of the streetwise skill?
You roll a 1 on a streetwise check, and some guy gives you information that tells you to go to house X on street Y to find more info. You know you're about to get messed up, but you go anyway.
You roll a 1 on a streetwise check, and your vision is of house X on street Y. You go to the house for more information.
You're shoehorned into following a bad lead either way you look at it, "and that's part of the fun."
...While it would tell you to go speak with a certain NPC, it would NOT tell you to go and speak with the wrong NPC. Specifically it would tell you exactly which NPCs to talk to whom it would be a good idea to talk and not those to whom it would be a mistake.
so while it sends you to Honest-Joe-Cleric to talk about Bob, and whom answers truthfully. It would not send you to Devious-Ken, who finding out that you are asking about Bob, gives you misinformation and sends you to an ambush.
Your words, not mine. Why do you think it has to be this way? There's absolutely no reason for this.
Everything is on the scales. The wrong images may stick out in my vision, and I end up getting wrong information, possibly even dangerous information, and I wouldn't know the difference (which is exactly the same as a normal streetwise check).
So as a DM, you would be fine with me meditating and consulting the scales... to perform a Thievery check to steal from someone? If I failed by 4 or more, I wasn't noticed and could try again with a new meditation. If I fail by 5 of more, they would notice what I'm doing and hunt me down... no advantage!!! (other than the fact that, you know... I'm not in physical proximity to the target) Oh, and I don't even think I need to mention that the fluff doesn't even match the skill... but some people don't seem to care about that.
What?! You say I can't do that?! Why not?! This game's no fun anymore!
You could roll and meditate, and you see an image of yourself pickpocketing the guy. You can't see if you succeed or fail, but you see yourself doing it in a certain way (the roll result). You eventually encounter your target, and you use the same roll result you used for your meditate.
Your meditate tells you how to do it, you still need to actually do it.
Like I said, it's fluff. You're using the same check, just roleplaying it differently. What's the problem?
You sit in meditation and let rumor drift into your mind,
blown in on the wind of the community consciousness.
Your Arcana check for this ritual counts as a Streetwise
check for gathering information. Treat the Streetwise DC
as 5 higher. You learn only information you could pick up
by a normal use of the Streetwise skill.
Now we're getting closer.
First, some observations:
1) Streetwise is written as not requiring social interaction, however the intent is very much as a social skill.
2) However, not everything having to do with Charisma is social in nature. Warlocks do not do more damage with Eldritch Blast because they said something mean about the enemy's momma.
3) No player's PC is entirely their own and no DM's world is entirely theirs - but mostly so in both instances.
4) In the end, the DM's word is law. It is up to the player to decide whether he can argue civilly for his interpretation, and whether the rewards are worth any table friction it causes.
Personally, I'd let you do it in a game I ran - I have a standing policy to reward player creativity whenever I find it, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else's fun.
However, it is a big departure from normal Streetwise (more like the Avatar or Ancestor backgrounds from WoD), and I would make you describe it in more detail - or agree to develop it with your DM as you use it.
For example, normal Streetwise checks give chances for encounters with NPCs and interaction with the outside world. They are also limited to local information, and civilzed environments.
Perhaps when you meditate, consider the following traits:
- You can only access the "local serpent spirit", which manifests as a snake telling you stories it has heard about the local events (from the view of a snake which has slithered in and out of people's "talking thoughts").
- When in the wild (where not much talking occurs), or without access to an area with throngs of people (when you are sleeping, imprisoned, etc.), the word-serpent cannot find you - your meditations are disturbed, providing no info.
- Sometimes in this trance, you say things without realizing it - even speaking in tongues. This allows you to still interact when needing to use Streetwise in, for example, Skill Challenges with the rest of the party (as well as getting to creep them out with your best far-away look). :P
Tying it as closely as possible to Streetwise's mechanics and repercussions, while still keeping the mystic flavor, is the key.
EDIT: Noticed you were going more for the pictures-on-scales imagery than a story-telling serpent, but the meditation is easily changed to a dream where you stare into the scales and see the events with the understanding that it is a dream based on other dreams (the locals), so it might not be wholly accurate.
You could roll and meditate, and you see an image of yourself pickpocketing the guy. You can't see if you succeed or fail, but you see yourself doing it in a certain way (the roll result). You eventually encounter your target, and you use the same roll result you used for your meditate.
Your meditate tells you how to do it, you still need to actually do it.
Like I said, it's fluff. You're using the same check, just roleplaying it differently. What's the problem?
That's not what I want to do... I don't want the item later; I want it while I'm meditating.
That's not what I want to do... I don't want the item later; I want it while I'm meditating.
I've posted numerous times that my meditate doesn't necessarily give "the answer"; it could just give the guy/place I should talk to/go. I still need to speak with someone or investigate the subjects of my vision.
I've posted numerous times that my meditate doesn't necessarily give "the answer"; it could just give the guy/place I should talk to/go. I still need to speak with someone or investigate the subjects of my vision.
Yeah, that's called scrying... o.O
Everything is on the scales. The wrong images may stick out in my vision, and I end up getting wrong information, possibly even dangerous information, and I wouldn't know the difference (which is exactly the same as a normal streetwise check).
No. No it is not. You fail to understand that Streetwise (unlike Arcana, Nature, Dungeoneering, and history) is not a "knowledge skill." It is a skill that presupposes action, like all other non-knowledge skills. It's not that I don't like your idea. As a DM, I would totally let you use the serpent as part of a history, nature, dungeoneering, or arcana check. Because when you meditate, you are seeking knowledge, and only knowledge. Knowledge, whether good or bad, is the only thing you get out of it. But a streetwise check is about more than knowledge. It is about taking interactive social action first, and hoping that from that interactive social action you can derive some knowledge without committing any active missteps in the process.
A failed Streetwise check sometimes gives you a good lead, sometimes gives you a bad lead, sometimes gives you a dangerous lead, and sometimes just sticks you right smack dab in the middle of the action without giving you any time to react. You do not get to choose the negative consequences of a failed Streetwise skill.
When you fail a Streetwise skill, it is not up to you to follow through on a path that leads you to stick out like a sore thumb by asking prodding questions around town. You do not get that choice. It just happens.
If Streetwise were not this way, WotC would not have seen fit to create a separate ritual which is jaw-droppingly similar to the very description of what you are attempting to do, short of writing the Peyote-snake into the fracking core rules.
> you a bad lead, sometimes gives you a dangerous lead, and sometimes just
> sticks you right smack dab in the middle of the action without giving you any
> time to react. You do not get to choose the negative consequences of a
> failed Streetwise skill.
RAW, a failed Streetwise check simply provides no information. It does not cause any other effect, including the ones you just listed.
Repeated attempts may draw attention, but that takes more than a single failure.
There are eight classes in the PHB. That's it. Not a huge number of skills either. If you restrict people to the "default" flavor, you restrict character concepts to a small segment of what is possible.
A ritual is not the same thing at all. Rituals cost money. Rituals give you extra results beyond what the normal skill would give you. Rituals are not practical to use on a regular basis.
If someone wants to have their eyes glow under strong emotions, are you going to make them buy an item or take a feat for that? If so, then prepare for a lot of people just dropping the flavor entirely.
Here's the thing ...
If someone wants to have their eyes glow under strong emotions, are you going to make them buy an item or take a feat for that? If so, then prepare for a lot of people just dropping the flavor entirely.
If said eye glow while experiencing strong emotions gives some kind of mechanical advantage, you bet your d20 that I'm going to make them buy and item or take a feat for it.
If Player 1 wants his eyes to glow purple when he gets angry, fine. But if he wants said purple glow to grant him darkvision, he's going to pay for having some spell permanenced on him.
Here's the way I see this entire thread (duplicated in the DM forum).
The player wants X. The DM, for whatever reason, says no and offers several compromises that he feels comfortable with that match what the player thinks is "flavor". Player has two options. Grow a pair, suck it up and accept that the DM said no or quit.
If any DM is as rational and approachable as the OP's, I'd hold onto them for as long as possible.
If said eye glow while experiencing strong emotions gives some kind of mechanical advantage, you bet your d20 that I'm going to make them buy and item or take a feat for it.
Except that the whole point of the OP, if you read it, is that the reflavoring would not have any mechanical effect, giving the same information with the same possible effects as the normal method for using Streetwise.
The player wants X. The DM, for whatever reason, says no and offers several compromises that he feels comfortable with that match what the player thinks is "flavor".
His "compromises" were using a ritual, using Arcana/Religion instead of Streetwise. If you take a look at the rules, you'll notice that rituals cost significant amounts of money. It isn't practical to use rituals anywhere as frequently as you would a skill, and doing so would actually be counterproductive if the character is already good at Streetwise.
Except that the whole point of the OP, if you read it, is that the reflavoring would not have any mechanical effect, giving the same information with the same possible effects as the normal method for using Streetwise.
His "compromises" were using a ritual, using Arcana/Religion instead of Streetwise. If you take a look at the rules, you'll notice that rituals cost significant amounts of money. It isn't practical to use rituals anywhere as frequently as you would a skill, and doing so would actually be counterproductive if the character is already good at Streetwise.
Sorry, but in reading and re-reading the OP and various examples of how Streetwise would/could be used, I see it as being something that would cause me, as a DM, problems.
I'm a new DM (I've now run a grand total of 7 sessions) and using the OPs example of how he would play this new Streetwise, I don't yet feel comfortable enough in my DM hat to be able to create a situation that leads him to an encounter on the fly, based on his meditations.
I can improv, certainly, but if the OP had been established as being in a seedy part of town, asking every Thom, Richard, and Harold about the BBEGs fortress, I've got an on-hand and established scenario.
Whereas with the OPs "flavor", I have to come up with something to lead him to this possible scenario which he may or may not actually follow. . . As a DM (and most DMs that I've played under), I'm wary of any player whose entire argument for something is that "I'm not trying to get an advantage" and "I promise to play this to the detriment of my character, no matter what".
Besides which, why should the DM have to say yes to this? There is already an established function in the game that allows this. And the DM said he would be fine with the OP using the already established function.
Yeah, it costs the character to use these rituals. And? How is using a ritual, for free as a skill check, not a mechanical advantage? How does this not punish Player B, who actually took the ritual and pays the costs for the use of this ritual. . . which does the same thing?
I'm all for flavor. But to reflavor something into something that already exists seems ridiculous and irrational to me and as a DM, I wouldn't allow it.
"What you want to do is already available to you in the form of X, Y, and Z. If you want to use this idea, you'll need to use X, Y, or Z (or some variation thereof)."
The DM ruled. End of story.
I can improv, certainly, but if the OP had been established as being in a seedy part of town, asking every Thom, Richard, and Harold about the BBEGs fortress, I've got an on-hand and established scenario.
Whereas with the OPs "flavor", I have to come up with something to lead him to this possible scenario which he may or may not actually follow...
Please read the OP's posts.
In that case, a high roll would accomplish what a high Streetwise roll would (give information without negative consequences) while a low roll would accomplish what a low Streetwise roll would accomplish (lead him into trouble). Yes, the trouble may manifest a little later (when he confidently walks to the entirely wrong door and announces his presence with a completely bogus password instead of while he's asking around), but are you seriously saying you'd have problems coming up with this trouble just because the BBEG's hit squad doesn't need to find him and he instead walks right up to their front door?
As a DM (and most DMs that I've played under), I'm wary of any player whose entire argument for something is that "I'm not trying to get an advantage" and "I promise to play this to the detriment of my character, no matter what".
How about the argument "it fits the flavor of my character better than the usual description"?
Right now, my warlock hasn't got a pact fluff-wise (because I didn't want to play a level-1-character capable of making a no-drawbacks pact with an eldritch entity). Right now, he's a wizard who got thrown out of his academy and who uses some little-known spells in uncommon ways, with a certain preference for an oversized Magic Missile aka Eldritch Blast. So what?
Yeah, it costs the character to use these rituals. And? How is using a ritual, for free as a skill check, not a mechanical advantage? How does this not punish Player B, who actually took the ritual and pays the costs for the use of this ritual. . . which does the same thing?
Read the text of the ritual. It allows a character to substitute an Arcana test for the Streetwise one. For a bookish CHA8 wizard with no trained social skills, that's what I'd consider a benefit.
A failed Streetwise check sometimes gives you a good lead, sometimes gives you a bad lead, sometimes gives you a dangerous lead, and sometimes just sticks you right smack dab in the middle of the action without giving you any time to react. You do not get to choose the negative consequences of a failed Streetwise skill.
When you fail a Streetwise skill, it is not up to you to follow through on a path that leads you to stick out like a sore thumb by asking prodding questions around town. You do not get that choice. It just happens.
Please quote me the rule that says this. All I can find is that you can draw attention to yourself by failing multiple Streetwise checks.
Right now, he's a wizard who got thrown out of his academy and who uses some little-known spells in uncommon ways, with a certain preference for an oversized Magic Missile aka Eldritch Blast. So what?
That's a neat idea. Makes me think of a neophyte wizard with a talent for raw power, but little control - able to make one big Magic Missile, but unable to master the variety of area and multiple-target effects the other wizards find so damn easy... :P